PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

Could the independent panel legitimately draw any inference if a witness refuses to co-operate / refuses to appear at the hearing?

Yes - say, if any of City's CAS witnesses refused to give evidence, I would think that this could/would create an adverse inference.

 

[Betterdeedthan red]

Is it true the half the charges have been dropped straight away .
About time the whole thing was fucked off as a total farce and waste of time

 

[slbsn]

It's an interesting question which is, as you suggest, difficult to answer absent sight of the evidence. However, my thinking is that the decision-making progress in bringing the charges may form part of the case because the question of "good faith" in the allegations is subjective.

That is to say someone at the PL has looked at the evidence and formed the opinion that City's actions constutute dishonesty. Whilst, obviously, it is ultimately for the Commission to decide, as it's implicit in the most serious charges, it would seem to be legitimate to cross examine whoever made that decision to bring out whether that opinion was arrived at properly.

Unlike, for example, the Secretary of State who, because (s)he can't see everything, is accepted as being able to delegate that power to their civil servants, I don't think Masters can shift that responsibility. Given the seriousness of the case and all its implications, he absolutely must have signed off on it and, therefore, should be able to justify it.

City, may, of course, believe that the decision-making process was impeccable or that there is nothing to be gained by challenging it but I suspect not and that Masters will end up being cross examined. I certainly hope so.

I don't think this will be City's defence. It isn't a good defence anyway IMO

 

[bluemoon32]

7000 pages, fucking hell ha

 

[slbsn]

I'd want to ask him about the decision to bring this action, with the sponsorship issue at its core, given the outcome at CAS.

I don't think it is relevant and isn't really how cross examination works - really cross examination is an exercise to discredit the witness or extract the answer you want from the witness. In any event, I'd think he will just say he received privileged advice on the subject and can't discuss it.

 

[Blue Mist]

I'm popping over tomorrow. School holidays now though so my offspring can leave me to deal with the jetlag. Congratulations on grandchild two btw

Perhaps we can all catch up for a beer.
Sheep Shearers Arms ? 6.30 ?

 

[malg]

We're definitely fucked as this Football 365 are very reliable ....

 

[give it to gordon]

Can City use the press and media pile on and indirectly putting pressure on the panel to influence them as evidence City are treated differently to offer clubs ?

 

[give it to gordon]

We're definitely fucked as this Football 365 are very reliable ....

View attachment 132359

Why post shit from Football365 ?

 

[TheThirdDeano]

Anyone else fucking bored of reading 1 million different tweets and “news” stories that amount to people wanking themselves silly over what might happen if we’re guilty?
It’s all so tiresome.